• Coastal evictions: When planning failure becomes a private burden

Eviction notices, hotel closures and demolitions along parts of Sri Lanka’s coastline have displaced workers and left investors uncertain about businesses built over many years. Beyond the legality of individual buildings, these actions raise questions about environmental protection, livelihoods and Government accountability.

Two public responsibilities underpin this controversy: protecting beaches, dunes, mangroves and public access, and safeguarding people from arbitrary or inconsistent State action. Environmental protection and procedural justice must together guide the response.

Neither the innocence of every operator nor the illegality of every structure can be assumed. The central question is how these establishments emerged, expanded and operated openly for years. Authorities describe some as illegal occupations or unauthorised developments. Operators, however, report receiving approvals, licences, utility connections and other official recognition. Some invested their savings or borrowed heavily, believing that their businesses were lawful. These claims warrant scrutiny: a business licence or utility connection does not necessarily authorise building or occupying coastal land.

The consequences extend beyond property owners. Coastal establishments provide accommodation, food, recreation and cultural experiences, while supporting fishermen, suppliers, transport operators, guides, craftspeople and casual workers. Sudden closure can disrupt household incomes and local economies, affecting people who had no role in securing approvals or deciding where construction occurred.

These livelihoods do not justify retaining every structure. Coastal ecosystems are sensitive public assets. Unregulated construction can restrict access, damage habitats, worsen erosion and expose communities to storms and flooding. The Government has a responsibility to prevent such harm and remove development where necessary. But enforcement must be evidence-based, transparent, consistent and provide a fair opportunity to challenge disputed findings.

The deeper governance question is what happens when public institutions permit, service, encourage or tolerate development, and then declare it illegal. Where approvals were improperly issued or violations knowingly ignored, responsibility cannot rest solely with operators, workers and communities. Institutional failures must also be investigated and addressed.

Before any eviction or demolition, authorities should explain which permissions were issued, by whom, under which powers and subject to which conditions. They should identify the grounds for enforcement, distinguish between different circumstances, and provide affected people with an opportunity to be heard. Where immediate danger requires urgent intervention, the reasons should be explained. Where removal is unavoidable, the response should address its social and economic consequences.

Accountability also requires examining officials’ decisions, considering appropriate remedies for people who relied on improper approvals, and supporting affected workers through the transition. Otherwise, demolition may remove buildings while leaving the failures that enabled them intact.

Protecting Sri Lanka’s coastline is essential. The test of responsible Government is whether it can do so fairly, accept responsibility for its failures and prevent their recurrence. Coastal protection must uphold livelihoods, justice and public accountability.

“Illegal” is not a sufficient explanation

If anyone believes that the authorities are simply removing illegally constructed buildings and structures, and that this must therefore be welcomed as good news, it is worth stepping back and thinking again. What is unfolding along Sri Lanka’s beachfronts is not merely an enforcement operation against a collection of unlawful structures. It reveals the longstanding weaknesses of the country’s planning system: weaknesses that have accumulated over decades and cannot be concealed by suddenly labelling every affected development “illegal.”

Nothing on the horizon reassures us that the system has been corrected or that similar crises will not arise again. Unless the underlying institutional failures are addressed, today’s demolitions may remove certain structures, but they will not remove the conditions that allowed those structures to be built, expanded and operated in the first place.

Three interconnected elements of the country’s planning mechanism require serious review: the planning system, the planning profession and the planning practice. When these three elements function properly, development is guided consistently, institutional responsibilities are clearly defined, public and private interests are balanced, and problems affecting society’s well-being are addressed before they become crises. When they do not function properly, uncertainty, inconsistency and injustice become embedded in the development process, which involves many forms of licensing, utility provision, permits of various sorts, and registrations.

Questions about the efficiency of the approval system

The coastal structures facing removal vary considerably in size, investment and operating conditions, from makeshift businesses to substantial tourism establishments. Their circumstances cannot be treated as identical. Each disputed development warrants an independent examination of its approval history, land status and environmental impact. Such scrutiny would establish individual responsibility while revealing how public institutions made decisions, coordinated their work and responded to violations.

Sri Lanka has planning laws and institutions covering land administration, coastal management, environmental protection, tourism and Local Government. These systems are intended to direct development towards appropriate locations, protect public resources and establish clear procedures. Operators must comply with their requirements, while responsible authorities must administer, monitor and enforce them. Legislation, however, means little when its application is inconsistent, delayed, or disconnected from decisions made elsewhere in Government.

The central question is how allegedly unauthorised structures were built, expanded and operated for years without effective intervention. If authorities cannot explain this history, responsibility cannot rest solely with individual operators. An independent investigation should examine both unlawful development and the administrative decisions or omissions that allowed it to continue. Demolition alone cannot resolve that wider failure.

A critical issue is whether one institution approved, licensed or accepted an activity that another prohibited. An operator might hold a trade licence, tourism registration or Local Authority approval while lacking essential coastal, environmental or land clearance. Did agencies verify the full approval position before issuing their permissions? Were applicants told which additional authorisations were required? Or did each institution process its own paperwork without checking whether the development could lawfully proceed?

The clarity of official information also matters. Were coastal reservations, setbacks and building restrictions clearly mapped, communicated and consistently interpreted? Some operators may have deliberately bypassed requirements, expecting weak enforcement or political protection. Others may have relied on incomplete advice, uncertain boundaries, outdated plans or assurances from officials. These circumstances do not automatically legalise a development, but they matter when assessing responsibility and deciding whether removal, modification, relocation or another remedy is appropriate.

Routine Government dealings raise further questions. Who reviewed building plans, issued licences, assessed taxes and authorised utility connections? Electricity and water supplies do not constitute planning permission. Nevertheless, years of official transactions may have encouraged operators to believe that their businesses were recognised and accepted. Authorities must distinguish between legal approval and administrative recognition while explaining why their own procedures failed to identify or communicate outstanding requirements.

Inspection records should help reconstruct what happened. Businesses may have received visits concerning public health, fire safety, tourism standards, environmental conditions or taxation. Did those inspections identify planning or coastal violations? Where concerns were recorded, were they referred to the responsible agency? Were notices issued and followed through? If enforcement stalled, the reasons should be disclosed. Repeated official contact without corrective action deserves scrutiny, particularly where businesses subsequently expanded or changed ownership.

Consistency is equally important. Were small operators and major hotels assessed against the same requirements? Did politically connected businesses receive concessions unavailable to others? Fair enforcement requires comparable cases to be treated according to transparent criteria. Differences in environmental harm, approval history or legal status may justify different outcomes; wealth, influence and personal connections should not. Publishing the criteria and reasons for decisions would help distinguish legitimate enforcement from arbitrary or selective action.

The investigation should therefore trace the entire chain of applications, permissions, licences, inspections, warnings and enforcement decisions. Operators should be able to present their records, and agencies should be required to explain theirs. Findings should identify deliberate violations, misleading advice, administrative neglect and any improper intervention without assuming that every business or public official bears equal responsibility.

The resulting reforms must connect approval processes, clarify institutional responsibilities and ensure that problems are addressed before construction or expansion occurs. Applicants need reliable information, agencies need shared records, and enforcement needs timely follow-up. Accountability must extend to those who authorised, tolerated or ignored unlawful development as well as those who undertook it.

Coastal protection requires credible institutions alongside enforceable rules. Unless fragmentation is corrected, removing existing structures will leave the conditions for similar disputes intact. Demolition may erase the physical evidence of failure; only accountable planning can prevent its repetition along Sri Lanka’s vulnerable coastline.

Investment, legitimate expectation and Govt responsibility

A central concern is that many proprietors may have invested substantial resources because public authorities' conduct gave them reasonable confidence that they were entitled to establish and operate their businesses. Official approvals, licences, and ongoing recognition may also have led them to assume that responsible agencies had already considered questions relating to location, coastal reservations, and environmental safeguards. After all, development on beachfront land rarely occurs entirely beyond the notice of the Government. Utility connections, road access, business licences, tax and rate payments, and services provided by Local and national agencies can all create an appearance of official legitimacy.

Approvals and official conduct create responsibilities on both sides. Where an operator knowingly disregarded the law or deliberately built without permission, appropriate enforcement may be justified. However, where public officials issued defective approvals, accepted payments, facilitated services or allowed a business to operate for many years, the Government must investigate its own institutional role rather than placing responsibility solely upon the operator.

A fair and proportionate response is therefore essential. Administrative error cannot automatically legalise a structure that causes serious environmental harm or occupies protected coastal land. Nevertheless, an innocent investor should not bear the full financial and social cost of Government failures. Accountability must extend to officials and institutions responsible for improper approvals or prolonged inaction. Affected operators should also have meaningful access to independent review, appeal, transitional assistance and, where justified, compensation.

Tourism value and the character of the coast

Newspaper reports suggest that many tourists value the small and medium-sized enterprises operating along Sri Lanka’s beaches. Their appeal often lies in direct access to the sea, an informal atmosphere, locally prepared food, personalised service and opportunities for visitors to interact with surrounding communities. These businesses can give coastal destinations a distinctive local character that larger, standardised tourism developments may not provide. They also create jobs, support local suppliers, and help distribute the tourism income within coastal communities.

However, the economic and experiential value of these enterprises should not override legitimate planning, environmental and public-access considerations. What is needed is a differentiated, case-by-case assessment rather than a single approach applied indiscriminately to every establishment. Such an assessment should identify businesses that contribute positively to the visitor experience and local economy while distinguishing them from developments that obstruct public access to beaches, damage dunes and vegetation, interfere with natural coastal processes or create unacceptable environmental risks.

Where problems can be corrected, authorities should consider redesign, relocation within the site, reduced building footprints, restored public-access corridors or stronger environmental safeguards before resorting to demolition. Establishments exposed to immediate threats from erosion, storms or sea-level rise should also be assessed through an appropriate coastal-risk framework. This approach would enable responsible tourism enterprises to continue while ensuring that environmentally damaging or unsafe encroachments are properly addressed.

Employment and the hidden local economy

The enforcement of rules governing coastal construction and reservations and Local planning can signal a welcome commitment to protecting the coast and upholding planning standards. Yet, the consequences extend beyond the structures being removed. Where these buildings house tourism businesses, demolition can disrupt a much wider local economy whose importance is easily overlooked.

The employment impact cannot be measured simply by counting the hotel staff. Behind each tourism business is a network of farmers supplying produce, fishers delivering their catch, tuk-tuk drivers transporting visitors, and workers providing laundry, repairs and maintenance. Tour guides and instructors depend on visitors, as do local shops, food vendors, craftspeople and performers. For women, young people and informal workers, these activities may provide essential income even when their contribution is absent from official employment records.

A demolition may remove one building, but, its effects can spread through many households. A cancelled supply order, fewer journeys or the loss of regular laundry work can weaken livelihoods far beyond the property concerned. These economic ripple effects must form part of the public assessment of enforcement, alongside its environmental and planning benefits.

Authorities should therefore be required to undertake a social and economic impact assessment before large-scale enforcement action. This should identify who depends on the affected businesses, assess likely income losses and establish practical measures to support affected workers and households. Protecting the coast and enforcing planning rules are essential responsibilities. However, fulfilling them requires understanding and addressing the consequences for local livelihoods.

Environmental protection and the public right to the beach

Acknowledge the strongest arguments supporting intervention. The coastline is not simply commercial real estate. It is an ecological system, a public space and a protective boundary.

Address: public access to beaches; coastal erosion; damage to dunes, mangroves and vegetation; wastewater and solid-waste pollution; construction within hazard-prone areas; and increasing climate risks.

This balanced treatment will strengthen your credibility. The problem is not regulation itself, but regulation that is delayed, selective or applied without a coherent transition process.

An alternative to sudden demolition

A more responsible approach to coastal enforcement would begin with a structured review. Where there is no immediate threat to public safety or the environment, authorities should suspend demolition while establishing the facts. They should publish the legal and planning basis for enforcement and audit each property, examining its approval history, environmental impact, legal status and potential to comply with applicable requirements. Owners and affected parties should have access to an independent appeals process before taking irreversible action.

This review should guide a proportionate response to each development. Businesses that can meet environmental, planning, and public-access requirements could be considered for regularisation under strict, enforceable conditions. Where harm can be corrected, authorities should require redesign, adequate setbacks, the restoration of public access or partial removal. Authorities should relocate establishments that cannot safely remain through a planned process, with clear responsibilities and realistic timeframes.

Conclusion

Ultimately, this tests governance. A Government's strength lies in its ability to protect public resources, uphold the law consistently, and treat affected people fairly. That requires accepting responsibility for its own decisions, holding those responsible for unlawful approvals accountable, and preventing the same failures from recurring.

Sri Lanka’s beaches are a shared inheritance. The livelihoods built around them also deserve serious consideration. Protecting both requires early planning, transparent decisions, institutions that work together, and proportionate, just enforcement. Fairness must never excuse deliberate encroachment; just as environmental protection must never excuse institutional inaction.

Sri Lanka does not have to choose between beaches and livelihoods. It must choose better governance.

A bulldozer can remove a building. But only good governance can remove the reasons that it should never have been built.

The writer is a multidisciplinary urban planner, educator, and sustainable urbanism practitioner with over three decades of experience across Sri Lanka, Australia, the Pacific Island countries, and the UK 

----------------------

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication